Technology, is used around the globe, from the invention of wheels to the futuristic Google glasses. To indicate whether technology does more harm or more good, I will list out points on why technology does more good than harm.

First of all, technology can bring us one step forward towards a much better future. Technology is created ever since the existence of mankind during the prehistoric times to ease mankind in completing any difficult tasks and to expand the horizon of the impossible. Most importantly, technology is used in many ways, such as to bring mankind into deep space, discover new resources, create new cures for various diseases, and many more. Without technology, mankind would still be considered as animals trapped on a planet, unarmed and unfit to fight for survival and unable to complete even the simplest tasks. Therefore, technology brings more good than harm.

Other than that, technology is needed for survival. Mammals, such as West African chimpanzees and Brazilian capuchin monkeys, uses technology in the form of stone hammers and anvils to crack nuts for food. Besides that, beavers make dams and bees make honeycombs. These are examples of the importance of technology. Without technology, survival is a challenge for both mankind and animals. Therefore, technology is essential for survival.

Even though mankind uses technology for some disadvantages, technology must and can be used to surpass all conflicts between one another, maintain peace throughout the globe, as the essential tool for survival, help all living creatures in the state of evolution, and teaches us the true meaning of hope...

Harms caused by technology-

Damages to the environment.

A.

Technology is the main factor behind global warming. We know that global warming is man made and a result of the industrial-technological revolution is because of the amount of low isotope carbon-14 found in the atmosphere. Something that mainly comes from burning fossil fuels. http://ossfoundation.us...

B.

More then 14,000 people die from drinking polluted water every day [1]. Nearly half a billion people do not have access to safe drinking water [2]. I've only mentioned the human element so far. This pollution is also causing extremely harmful affects on underwater ecosystems as well. The sources of this harmful phenomenon is mostly human caused and as a result of technology. If you look at the sources of water pollution in the cited article you will come to the same conclusion [3].

Harm of the industrial-technological society on Animals.

Factory farming has reduced animals to mere cogs in the machine. Animals are out in cages that are extremely crowded . They live their whole lives barely able to move. [1] They are on many occasions force fed in a way that causes extreme damage and pain [2]. They are debeaked [3]. This is just a short list of the abuse these animals take to feed the industrial-technological system.

Harmful affects to humans

It's not just animals who are reduced to mere cogs in the technological society. Humans have almost lost all autonomy. We have been reduced to wage slave [1]. Are movement is extremely controlled. We must walk on the side walk follow green lights, stop at red ones.

Psychological affects on humans.

Humans have a great need for the feeling of autonomy [1]. People have fought and died for their right to have autonomy. Often when people are suffering depression they claim to feel like they have no control over the direction of their life. Autonomy is an innate human desire that isn't going away despite the fact the more the technological beast grows the more us humans lose our autonomy.

CONCLUSION

As I have mentioned earlier, I have stated that technology is crucial to the survival of all living creatures. Technology is
inescapable in our lives and has proved essential to mankind. Therefore, it is conclusive that humans and animals needs technology. Next, I will point out the faults in your points.

Your first point ,which stated global warming was caused by technology, is in fact a probability, not conclusive. Even if technology caused the occurrence of global warming, global warming can be overcome by technology. How so? Well, technology has changed when it began entering the new era of clean and sufficient energy. As we all know, scientists of today have invented solar panels and wind turbines, that supplies us clean energies, which doesn't pollutes. One day, our societies will replace everything that pollutes to things that doesn't, from cars that runs by petrol to cars that runs by solar energy, from burning fossils to generating wing energy and many other.

Besides that, you stated that many people does not have access to safe drinking water, but do you know that's a company in Switzerland invented a water filter, called the LifeStraw. It is an excellent example that technology can overcome any problems and make it better. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Other than that, it is normal for humans to have farm animals as they are food to us. As your point, you said that animals were treated badly. However, little did you know, there are also animal sanctuaries and forest reserves to protect them in their natural habitats. For example, http://woodstocksanctuary.org.... When technology gets better, our civilizations stays in a stable position resulting mankind to be capable of compassion. That way, we get to do more than just survive, we'll be able to help others in survival, and maybe more.

Moreover, technology will never control us as technology is a part of us ever since the dawn of mankind. We earn our living with technology as our stepping stone for success and use technology to maintain peace and order. Without technology, there will be chaos and our society will never be suitable for our future generations to grow in.

Lastly, there are no evidence referring that the loss of the human autonomy was actually caused by the superior rise of technology. In fact, there are no relation between these two things. The information you gave merely explain the definition of autonomy, not how these two things relate.

In conclusion, technology can and will bring us more good than harm, and bring us hope rather than chaos.

" Without technology, mankind would still be considered as animals trapped on a planet, unarmed and unfit to fight for survival and unable to complete even the simplest tasks. Therefore, technology brings more good than harm."

There is literally 200,000 years of human existence and survival happened just fine before anything you'd consider technology even existed. Humans can survive on very little as evidenced by are ancestors doing it for at least 180,000 years.

"Even though mankind uses technology for some disadvantages, technology must and can be used to surpass all conflicts between one another, maintain peace throughout the globe, as the essential tool for survival, help all living creatures in the state of evolution, and teaches us the true meaning of hope"

On the contrary. Technology has made conflict easier. We can send planes across the globe to kill enemies we wouldn't even have if it weren't for us being so interconnected because of technology.

When you consider that because the world is so connected diseases like Ebola can spread across the globe faster and easier, meaning a plague could more easily destroy the worl, we have enough nukes where if we were to go to war with another nuclear powered country we could end all life on Earth.

Technology isn't our savior. It is in fact enslaving us like my last round showed and may even be the thing that wipes humanity of the face of the Earth.

"inescapable in our lives and has proved essential to mankind. Therefore, it is conclusive that humans and animals needs technology"

That's irrelevant to the resolution. The question posed is "does it do more harm than Good", which it most certainly does not "Is it essential for survival", which is debatable.

"Your first point ,which stated global warming was caused by technology, is in fact a probability, not conclusive. Even if technology caused the occurrence of global warming, global warming can be overcome by technology

I gave evidence to support that conclusion and you've merely asserted it's not true instead of addressing my arguments. My arguments stand and I extend them.

"One day, our societies will replace everything that pollutes to things that doesn't, from cars that runs by petrol to cars that runs by solar energy, from burning fossils to generating wing energy and many other."

speculation, nothing to support these beliefs. This is just a bare assertion at it's finest. The trend is more pollution and global warming and I see no evidence of those trends stopping. Even so, without technology to start with global warming wouldn't be a problem.

I gave evidence for how autonomy was destroyed under my section entitled "harm to humans". I've shown billions of animals tortured and bad drinking water. The best pro does is show how these things can be mitigated with technology but these things are harmful no matter what

Technology doesn't have to be anything relating to computers or anything from the late 20th to early 21st century. When primitive humans made stone tools, that was a technological advancement. When the steam engine was built, that was a technological advancement. When we made catapults and other medieval heavy artillery, that was a technological advancement.

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable behavior in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pro needed to show that technology brought more good than harm. Pro did so by presenting a case revolving around allowing for a better life, survivability, and maintaining peace. Con showed the damage caused via environmental, animal habitats, and the negative health and mental outcomes on humans. Pro then fails to rebut the human points, while arguing for green energy as beneficial to the environment and animals. Con then, quite literally, rebuts every point raised by Pro, as well as re-affirming his own. Due to Pro's forfeit in the final round, Con's counter-arguments were left standing unchallenged. Since Pro had the BOP and failed to deliver by forfeiting, Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. Vastly more in terms of quality and quantity over Pro. This is a clear win for Con.